ADF’s Best and Worst Cases for 2005

ADF’s Best and Worst Cases for 2005

By Jim Jenkins

The year 2005 produced more than its share of controversial bad decisions effecting traditional values. Both state and federal courts came under heightened scrutiny over allegations of judicial activism-that is when judges make up the law to fit their own philosophies rather than follow it. Nonetheless, the courts also issued some very good decisions defending the sanctity of life, religious liberty and protection of the family. Here are some of the “worst” and “best” of these decisions for 2005.

In the “worst” category here are a few of my picks:

The Terry Schiavo case, where a Florida judge decided Terry’s life had no further value, and that she would prefer death based on scant and suspect evidence from an adulterous husband. A warning to us all over the erosion of the sanctity of life, and the need for health care directives.

The case of Fields v Palmdale School District, where a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (thankfully the most reversed Circuit in the country) held that parents had no constitutional rights to object to the activities conducted in public schools - in this case no parents’ rights to object to an explicit sex survey given to first, third and fifth graders. The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an overwhelming resolution asking the full Court to reconsider this ridiculous decision.

In the case McCreary County Ky. v ACLU, the Supreme Court held that a display of the Ten Commandments in a county courthouse was unconstitutional, even though the county had attempted to follow the Court’s later mandates for adding secular displays. The Court held that the original intent to display only the Ten Commandments was enough to cause a violation of the abused “separation of church and state” requirement. This reasoning would be silly if it wasn’t so outrageously sad.

As many will recall, avowed atheist, Michael Newdow, attempted to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional because his estranged son’s grade school recited the Pledge which, of course, contains the phrase “under God.” Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his first attempt on the grounds that he lacked parental standing. However, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton accepted Newdow’s second attempt and ruled that Pledge with the phrase “under God” was unconstitutional because it violated a child’s right “to be free from coercive requirements to affirm God.” Thank God the appeal will ultimately be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, some of the decisions in the “best” category:

In a stunning victory, the Louisiana Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that the Louisiana Marriage Amendment, challenged by advocates of homosexual behavior, was constitutional. Mike Johnson, a Senior Legal Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, argued the case before the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Justice for All v Faulkner held that a university campus is a public forum and the University of Texas could not require pro-life students to identify themselves before distributing pro-life leaflets. Identification, not required for any other group, was a method of intimidating the participating pro-life students.

In two separate cases Alliance Defense Fund attorneys prevailed on the same issue. Both the University of North Carolina and Southern Illinois University had attempted to require Christian student organizations to comply with so called non-discrimination policies, which included sexual orientation, in order to be officially recognized. To comply with these policies would have required these Christian organizations to admit homosexuals who completely disagree with their goals and principles. The ploy of using non-discrimination policies, which include sexual orientation, against Christian organizations on college campuses is widespread, but ADF has been successful in thwarting attempts by universities who have sought to use this tactic. (See www.universitystudentspeech.org)

In a case with facts which will certainly be repeated in similar circumstances, a Probate Court refused to grant a constructive trust of the assets of a deceased homosexual partner who had been killed in an auto accident in favor of his surviving partner. The Court held that the surviving partner had no legal claim to the assets of the deceased partner. As same sex relationships continue to expand, claims of this kind will rise. This is a good decision, but some Court somewhere will rule the other way on some quasi marriage theory.

There were many more “worst” and “best” cases from 2005, but these cases demonstrate the importance of remaining vigilant in the battle for religious liberty. May we pray that courts across America follow the rule of law in 2006.That would certainly bode well for a happy New Year!

Jim Jenkins is Senior Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, Midwest Regional Service Center and may be reached by writing to: Alliance Defense Fund, 15660 West 135th Street, Olathe, KA 66062 or by calling (913) 829-7755.